Epic fark. There is a Jim Tressel Signing Things fark thread at TigerDroppings featuring frequent contributions from LSUFreek. There's an excessive quantity of lolbewbs but there are also gems like this:

Try to get that out of your head within the next decade.

Refinements. Frequent diarist the_white_tiger has started up his blog, Maize Colored Glasses, and one of his first posts is a refinement of the polynomial graphs purveyed on The Only Colors that show performance trends over the conference season. TWT increased the polynomial count—this allows more "turns" in the graph—and normalized for opponent performance.

Michigan's result won't surprise you but the way they got there might:

There might have been a very slight uptick in the offense; the defense got massively better. The really really high yellow spot on the graph was that Indiana blowout. Horrible team given many points == ugly. From there the turnaround was gradual improvement. I linked one of John Gasaway's "Tuesday Truths" column around the middle of the conference season to point out that Michigan was dead last in defense; the year-end numbers TWT is using show them squarely middle of the road (sixth).

My favorite other graph is Minnesota's:

There should be a vertical line at game seven labeled "Al Nolen explodes, season goes with it."

After not being able to eat solid foods last week, losing close to 20 pounds and as a result having to sit out during the regional round of the playoffs. Brandon Burlon skated at Monday and Tuesday’s practices. He said he’s regaining the weight steadily.

Burlon said he expects to play next weekend, but a final determination has not been made.

Twenty pounds seems a little sensational. In any case, getting Burlon back would be huge as Michigan goes up against a Sioux team featuring the best—or, from Michigan's perspective, worst—aspects of the UNO and CC teams they beat to reach St. Paul. Like CC, they have a lights out top line. Hobey lock Matt Frattin is coring at a nearly goal-per-game pace. Like UNO, they have scoring depth. Six forwards have at least 13 goals, a couple more have eight, and two defensemen are putting up Moffie-like numbers. Getting Burlon back gives Michigan the defensive depth to match UND's forward depth.

Hypothetically, anyway. I've been looking at their stats for the past five minutes and feeling deeply unhappy.

The only lawyer in America. Someone on the board linked to an article about a lawyer discussing what's going down at Ohio State and if they can expect more than the wrist slap they've given themselves, and I just knew in my bones we were about to get a quote from…

“If I was representing a coach in that similar situation, I would advise my client to expect not only a show-cause order assessed against him or her, but also significant individual penalties that may cause their employer, which is the university, to either terminate their employment or some other significant employment action,” said Michael L. Buckner, of Pompano Beach, Fla., whose law firm specializes in representing schools and individuals before the NCAA. “I’d tell them they should be prepared for that.“

I like him so much more when he's producing alarmist soundbites about other teams.

Buckner-issued proclamations about Michigan's NCAA foofaraw turned out to be just that but media framing had a lot to do with that—see this article titled "Avoiding show-cause order a must for Michigan, Rodriguez" from Dave Birkett that has Buckner explaining that show-cause is bad, mmmkay, despite the fact that no one thought it was even vaguely plausible once the hype about the initial article was replaced by a general sense that it was crap. In that article Buckner has this to say:

“Michigan would have to make sure that Coach Rodriguez follows the show-cause order,” Buckner said. “If he’s found to have committed the failure to monitor, issued a show-cause order, and then he goes to West Virginia … and if he’s found to have failed to monitor in that case, than a show-cause order can be enhanced significantly."

Buckner said Michigan must “provide as much evidence as (it) can to defend Coach Rodriguez so that (it) can eliminate that failure to monitor allegation.”

“Whether or not you can actually do that” remains to be seen, he said.

There's a big gap between "if, if, if" in the latter article—it did turn out Michigan had enough to eliminate the failure to monitor allegation, for all the good that did for Rodriguez's employment prospects—and "expect not only a show cause but significant individual penalties."

FWIW, that's a Bruce Hooley article. Hooley's the guy who went ape on the radio about this whole thing and is apparently going whole hog in an effort to become a guy who makes money by being hated. He's not exactly unbiased.

BONUS: Eleven Warriors is totally right that Stanley McClover claiming he got cash from OSU and MSU isn't going to amount to anything, but I loved to imagine an Ohio State fan who was one of the legion saying "I remember when he decommitted, not surprised there was some funny business going on there" watching the HBO special and going from smug to outraged in the space of an anecdote.

Oregon State president Ed Ray was executive vice president and provost at Ohio State in 2001, and had input into the hiring of Tressel. He’s now chairman of the NCAA executive committee, and told Rachel Bachman of The Oregonian that “this whole episode to me is beyond the pale. It’s totally unacceptable. I’m pretty disappointed and startled by it all.”

Goddammit, Sporting News headline writers. I hate you so much.

BONUS BONUS BONUS: Is it possible to see Rich Rodriguez these days and not think he's constantly fighting the urge to kill everyone in the room?

Three years ago I was a broken thumb away from a national championship game. I was a hero. I invented the spread offense.

Now everyone in two states hates me and thinks I'm retarded. A month ago I interviewed my replacement—who walked into Denard Robinson and Jim Tressel making my fake NCAA violations look like the Nobel Peace Prize—on television. Right this instant I'm staring at Jason Whitlock, surrounded by men in suits. Jason Whitlock. Suits. Whitlocksuits. whssiiisisfi

FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU /goes Falling Down on universe

"It is not often that you have to stare the death of your basketball program in the face". Matt Painter's flirtation with Missouri was an earth-shaking event for Purdue fans. For confirmation a quick check of the first two pages at Hammer and Rails will suffice. Open letter: check. Open thread soaring well past a thousand comments: check. Bolded quote: check. Wholesale demolition of your entire athletic department:

Check. The answer is pretty much "yes"; contained within the link is a more comprehensive explosion of an athletic department than you'll find anywhere. IU fans should bookmark it for future e-peen wars. It incidentally makes you go "whoah" halfway through:

Total Number of Big Ten Championships as of spring 2009:

Michigan 347

Illinois 228

Ohio State 185

Wisconsin 180

Indiana 162

Minnesota 154

Iowa 104

Michigan State 81

Northwestern 69

Purdue 67

Penn State 50

Nebraska 0 (obviously)

Michigan has a lot of sports and has been around a lot of years but holy crap, man. That doesn't even include hockey.

And now for a completely different tangent on Painter. I've been annoyed at Braves & Birds' theory that the Big Ten has been disappointing in football because it hires losers like Ron Zook and nuts like Tim Brewster over actual football coaches. Lately I'm just annoyed it's right. It's hard to dispute after the latest round of hires from the Richest Conference In The Universe is MAC and Mountain West guys with iffy records. None of these guys are Bobby Petrino.

Painter has been wildly successful. Missouri is locked into an abusive relationship with Texas and would have punched a swan to get into the Big Ten this summer. Their TV contract sucks. They have little cachet outside their home state. They do not have a network that drops by every once in a while to drop off a new diamond boat. If Purdue had been too cheap to keep him that would have been a stunning indictment of Purdue, and I think that would have bled over into the entire mentality of a conference that really expects people to call its conferences "Legends and Leaders."

Why is it that I suspect that people who see nothing wrong with wealth being "distributed" from black inner-city kids (who tend to play revenue-generating college sports) towards white suburban kids (who tend to play lacrosse) would throw a major fit if the wealth were being "distributed" in the other direction.

The only distribution of wealth is from one portion of the school's athletic budget to another portion. It's not as if the money is being taken from the black inner-city kids and given to the rich white kids.

ALL of the kids - black, white, and every color in between, benefit from the sports programs. They ALL receive free education. They ALL receive free room and board. They ALL receive the huge resume boost that playing a D1 sport gives you.

Also, your steriotyping of inner-city black kids as those who generate the revenue and suburban white kids as those that play the non-revenue sports is offensive and stupid, especially since about 1/2 of our BB team is white.

You make it sound like the "black inner-city" kids have cash BEFORE they go to college that the school takes from them and hands to the white scoccer and lacross players. Whatever inequities exist in the system, it is not a matter of redistributing existing wealth. The wealth in question is generated by the concerted efforts of the athletes and the universites. Or do you think, say, Denard or Darius Morris could generate a sizable amount of cash without being U-M, Big Ten athletes? Maybe in a few years, but not straight out of high school. It's more an issue of (arguably) inequitable compensation, since Denard and your typical golfer or softball player get "paid" the same for work that could be valued very differently.

Other than wanting to talk about race on MGoBlog, did you have a reason for bringing it up? I seem to recall a white David Molk snapping to a black Denard, and if a white Mike Martin gets beat, the ball carrier will be tackled by a black Troy Woolfolk. Seems a little balanced, no?

Distribution of revenue is a good discussion, but this race related shit has no place in it. Whether we have an all-white FB/MBB/Hockey program and all-black non-revenue sports, or if it's an all-black FB/MBB/Hockey program and all-white non revenue sports, I (and nearly all of MGoBlog) would not see it differently. Thankfully, it's neither.

I'm sorry, but I don't think Mike Martin is considered "white". At least, not any moreso than Tiger Woods or Barack Obama, and, generally, I don't think white people perceive either of Messrs. Woods or Obama to be "white."

I didn't try to be offensive here. I honestly didn't know what else to call MM and never cared enough to look deeply at it, I guess.

My point was just that race shouldn't be an issue in this, and I apparently put my foot in my mouth, but it was an honest mistake based mainly on me not caring too much. The guy below said it just right, I should have just said RVB.

Not to go all Nazi Wannsee Conference on you, but by most ways of determining these types of things, Mike Martin is probably considered black. I couldn't care less one way or t'other but I don't think it is accurate to call him white. Go with RVB, his racial make-up is probably less controversial.

People who disagree with your conclusion are too entrenched in their addiction to NCAA sports to admit that the system is egregious. Doing so would invalidate their fandom.

For one moment, try to take off your maize-tinted glasses and realize that, yes, in general, the NCAA redistributes from poor to rich kids. Basketball and football generate dollars to give to scholarships in non-revenue sports, which are dominated by white, more affluent athletes.

Ask yourself: How much is a Denard Robinson worth in a free market? Jalen Rose back in the day? Their revenue-generating potential is off the charts. We may disagree on whether such athletes are exploited -- although I think they are -- but it is a fact that the NCAA is maldistributive.

Finally, it doesn't matter that Michigan has both white and black as well as rich and poor athletes in the revenue generating sports. Counterexamples themselves do not disprove the general truth about NCAA prejudice.

It's a decent point. What's the percentage of predominantly minority-enrolled high schools that have swimming, diving, wrestling, lacrosse, hockey, volleyball (women's and men's), soccer (ditto), golf, field hockey, crew (?), squash, etc. vs. similarly enrolled schools which are predominantly white? Granted, it's likely a socioeconomic argument, but it doesn't make the point any less valid that, from a strictly race standpoint, it's far more likely for a minority athlete to participate in one of the "major" sports than one of the aforementioned sports, and the percentages of white student athletes in the non-revenue sports is, for the most part, higher than in the revenue-sports. Of course I realize that Michigan had a high number of white players who were not only on its basketball team but were contributors and stars this year. However, that doesn't change the fact that, generally speaking, in Division I, there are far more minorities playing basketball and football (sports which are available at virtually every high school in America with more than a certain number of students), percentage-wise, than there are playing the sports listed above.

The argument always centers on someone like Denard. Is Denard exploited or not earning his worth to Michigan thru the scholarship? I think that answer is a definite, large, yes. Chris Webber? Yes. Jalen Rose? Yes Charles Woodson? Yes, Desmond Howard? Yes.

Teric Jones? Greg Banks? Adam Patterson? Anybody on Akron? Anybody on Inidana? Anyone on Minnesota? I would say 95 to 99% of college athletes provide minimal differential to the revenue generated by schools. Most kids are offered a scholarship worth from anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000 in just tuition, books etc and the uncapped value of such scholarship over their current situation in terms of earning power.

In exchange for this they are expected towrk hard at their chosen fieldd and represent the University. Did P. Dorrenstein effect jersey sales? How many wins did he help or cost the team? His effect on Michigan I will argue was no different than any of a 1000 or so kids that were not given the opportunity.

I'm not about to neg you. You made good points in an honest way, and I would never neg someone for that.

I think you're missing the point though. The NCAA exploits; I think that can be proven economically. However, I do believe you are wrong about race. Tyler Hansbrough was exploited every bit as much as Jalen Rose, the long line of "non-minority" quarterbacks such as Andrew Luck, Peyton Manning and Tim Tebow are exploited every bit as much as Vince Young, Denard Robinson and Cam Newton.

I just do not see race as a factor. To clarify, the only way I would see race as a factor is if the NCAA would change if races were reversed (this statement disregards amazing athletes of races other than "black" or "white" but I'm just trying to illustrate a point). I see no way the NCAA would change its definition of amateurism to benefit white over black, or vice versa.

Our society and universities have many mechanisms for redistrubiting wealth from the rich to the poor. Your suggestion that "people would throw a fit" if this happened is factually true because people throw fits about everything but wrong in spirit because it still happens and is supported by most of the population.

Personally, I think that you are really talking about socio-economic issues (and in the case of LAX, geographic differences.) Introducing race into the equation is not helpful since the root of the problem is not racial. It's not like white people hate football and love them some squash. Football is king with all races. Rich east coasters play LAX. Middle class white suburban kids in the midwest don't even know what LAX is.

“If I were in their position, I’d be a hanging judge,” Ray said. “I think there are lines you don’t cross in your own life … I’m not a big mercy guy. I’m not a big understander of extenuating circumstances. We all sort of engage in thinking about situational ethics. But I’m kinda old-school. And I think you’re either ethical or you’re not ethical.”

I always find it funny when people on here express how done over Rich was by a bad situation and how bad they feel for him having suffered through it. (The latest addition to the story is he was undone by unsophisticated old school fans with mustaches who were too dense to grasp his greatness as a coach.)

If people really feel so deeply for the man and how bad things have turned for him, why would they even want him in a place that was proven to be such a bad fit? They should feel great for him.

Yeah we still have Denard, but Greg Mattison's inability to mention talent when describing our defensive players was telling as to the massive overhaul Hoke has ahead of him in 2 of the 3 phases. Denard is the model hot receptionist at the high rise but is actually a virtual office. In the back is a 2 liter of Coke and dixie cups and a bunch of guys working at card tables. Much to build for the long haul to make it real.

Judging Hoke conclusively any earlier than the third season is guesswork.

Not too many people on here (main writers included) still seem to be blaming all RichRod's woes on external enemies. He obviously hurt himself in several ways. It would be pleasant, though, if some members would acknowledge that there *were* some enemies. No way has Brady Hoke encountered the same amount of resistance.

I always find it funny that you can't let a day or two pass without yet another 15 paragraph diatribe about how Rich Rodriguez is in fact the Devil and eats small orphans for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. For snacks, he of course eats unwed teenager mothers.

Why do we need voting to count? How does this guy get to 3,000+ pts? A few pics and random comments... 3,000+, yes sir!

I've been reading a year before my joining the site but RR essays are stupid at this point. Anyone who has read the board since the firing needs to recognize the redundancy of any post concerning RR. I've heard it shut up...

as has been detailed in many places. Burke is a moronic tightwad who lucked into Tiller and Painter and thinks he knows what he's doing, even though every basketball coach he's ever supervised has had to consider other offers in order to get paid better.*

The sad thing is that the table above would be even worse if it weren't for basketball: thanks in part to being good before most others schools figured it out, Purdue has a winning record** against every conference opponent in addition to leading the conference with 22 titles.

National championships are even worse, and will make Burke think he's the shit. Three team titles, two under Burke's tenure; eight individual titles, six*** under his tenure. Northwestern has 6; Minnesota has the next fewest, with 15.

Burke wants to run a nationally-recognized program on a shoestring budget, and he can't figure out why it's not working (aside from the fact that Purdue funds only 18 sports, the fewest in the conference - even Northwestern has 19 varsity sports; no hockey in West Lafayette). A I-AA coach with a struggling team isn't filling the stands, which means less money for the non-revenue programs and less money to ensure your excellent young coach isn't snatched up by someone willing to write a check that starts with 2**** ... and of course those of you who are interested already know about the whiny "it's not our fault, it's yours" letter that was subsequently followed by a Tressel-like apology.

Maybe the Angry Purdue Knee-Hating God is striking back in retaliation for this approach. I can't blame him.

*Phrased for effect: of course there have only been two, but Keady did basically the same thing in the '90s as Painter did just now.

**AFAIK. Wikipedia says the OSU series is in danger of flipping, 83-82 right now. Matta can do something shady and get caught any time now, plz.

***From one guy, however, and I wouldn't give credit to Burke for that, but he was here while it was happening.

****Even when the women's program was kicking ass, the coaches were leaving on a regular basis ... granted that's a somewhat different situation, but still, Burke couldn't keep them around either.

Same ol' same ol'. You (and scores of others) have made your point. Brian's making his. There's Rivals, Scout, Magnus's blog, WLA, Burgeoning Wolverine Star, and others if you don't like Brian's opinions. I, for one, like the fact that he gets repeatedly pilloried in the comments yet sticks by his guns. Even if he's wrong, there's something to be said for principle. And, well, let's be honest: we hired a sub-.500 coach because he really wanted to be here. Hating on Brian for pointing out the contrast between the situations the two men walked into doesn't change, well, the different situations the two men walked into, and getting pissed when he dares point it out on his blog less than 3 months after Hoke was hired seems a little. . . entitled. And the "intellectual arrogance" quote borders on pure douchebaggery. Come on- it isn't like this is the Wall Street Journal or New York Times comments section; this is a different kind of online community, and the author isn't some guy with whom you have nothing in common who lives/works in a metaphorical ivory tower (though I get the feeling some may think of Brian as the Michigan equivalent of an "ivory tower intellectual.")

* Brady was praised for being honest and direct about how the fractious atmosphere of the last few years "Pi$$ed him off."

* Same with Twitter, which Hoke has decided to ignore. It was something like "This is a guy who knows who he is."

* Coach-speak. That wasn't very long ago. Hoke was complimented for understanding it. Rodriguez, you may have noted, was trashed for the not getting it.

Aside: I love how people compare Hoke to Urban Meyer without looking at the details (47-50 vs. whatever Meyer's record was at BGSU and Utah).

I feel pretty good about Hoke. Like most others, I'm tired of hearing about "fit," but he certainly seems to have that going for him. I just wish he didn't make Rodriguez (in contrast) sound like a legal scholar during his interviews. I'm concerned that we'll have some foot-in-mouth incidents during the season. Lucky for Brady, they'll likely be forgiven (Michigan Man and all that).

Bruce Hooley spent many years being the least homerific guy amongst the homers (like Herbstreit and Speilman) on WBNS--the official flagship OSU station of homers. As an aside, it was very interesting to hear how different Herbstreit and Speilman were on WBNS compared to ESPN or other national media outlets but that is a side point of marginal interest to anyone but me.

If Hooley has decided to attack OSU, I think he has earned the right for people to at least assume he is sincere--unlike the likes of Drew Sharp or Paul Finebaum, who were, to my knowledge, outrage artists from the word go. I guess I don't know if the word "impartial" even applies to Hooley. For a decade he was unquestionably pro-OSU. His lack of partiality was never in question. So the fact that he's switched parties has got to mean something.

What I'm saying is having Finebaum or Sharp hate on you merely means you're not winning enough. Having Bruce Hooley hate on you means the public opinion in Ohio might be shifting.